Does God Exist?

Talking abstracts because you have no examples is not demonstrating a person who can hold a discussion. Do you KNOW what you want to say here?

 

This statement is self contradictory. If it does not exist it can't also exist in mind or any other way. You say distinctly again that god exists in the mind which is what I quoted you as saying. I didn't quote you so I wouldn't have to discuss anything, I just got down to tacks. Is there some other claim about god you would like to make?

 

Ever

 

I will then go ahead and affirm Your belief in the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Praise his noodly appendages!

 

Such a belief I do not espouse should this then be an exposé. I would wait before slapping yourself on the back should you choke!`

 

You don't espouse it? Wait, who is making self contradictions? So It's a contradiction if others don't believe in the existence of your loony ideas but It's not a contradiction if you don't believe in others loony ideas? Haha... *Pats himself on the back and feels fine*


Now go ahead and twist words thedope so you can feel like you are making sense.

 

I do not espouse belief in a flying spaghetti monster.

Specifically?

My ideas loony or otherwise exist.

What you put forward is a genuine proposition but it does not accurately affirm my belief.

Must have been gas.

Did I parse them in a nonsensical way?

 

that gas can get you.....lololololol

 

Thanks for resonding to my questions. I agree with some of what you say. The rest, I think, reflects some real confusion that I'm not sure it's possible to clear up.

That point is well taken, but belief in a God inevitably involves faith.

The huge swing in the beliefs in the Christian religion has no logical relationship at all to the existence or non-existence of God. Jesus predicted that there would be false prophets. The "Latter Day Pharisees"* who claim to be the real Christians today (i.e., the religious right) are doing what Pharisees* always do--making a loud, self-righteous display of their religiosity while disregarding the core values of true Christianity: love of others, tolerance, justice, and concern for the disadvantaged and society's rejects. God didn't change. Those have always been the teachings, regardless of how humans try to pervert it.

Christianity during the 60s and 70s had it right, and the preachers who say otherwise today are false prophets. Jesus gave us a test for telling the real ones from the fakes. The teachings of the false prophets bear bitter fruit. The bitter fruit of hatred, intolerance, injustice, and judgmental conduct should be evident to anyone who thinks about it rationally.

The "well-documented' article you give us is actually very thin on documentation and is in fact a rather reckless half-baked conspiracy theory that happens to contain grains of truth. Dominionism, including Christan Reconstructionism, is right-wing Christianity's theocratic counterpart to radical Islam, that wants a return to the caliphate and governance by Sharia law--only the Dominionists want to restore the theocratic regime of ancient Israel and Mosaic law. It is currently the view of a small minority of nutcase fanatics among Christians, some unfortunately very rich and well-armed--something to watch and be concerned about, but not representative of mainstream Christian opinion,at least not yet. Under the late Jerry Falwell, many conservative Christian "Moral Majority" fans got into bed with the Republican Party and became it's "base". In my state of Oklahoma, there's a pretty close overlap between conservative Christian evangelicals and Republicans. I have faith that this unholy alliance will blow up in both of their faces. Meanwhile, guilt by association with this bunch of pharisees masquerading as Christians is a cross true Christians have to bear. And BTW, the NIV is not a version of the Bible these right-wingers approve of. There are many translations of the Bible available--many of them around for quite some time. Nobody has established any of them as official. The right-wingers prefer the good ol' King James Version, with all its obvious errors (e.g., unicorns).

______________________

[quote=Sam Dodd;8035189] Originally posted by Sam Dodd: I don't have any faith that God doesn't exist. I know he doesn't. That's not faith, that's logic based on facts. [/quote]
That is simply incorrect. The rules of logic are definite and well-understood. It's impossible to prove or disprove God by means of logic and facts--certainly not the pseudo facts and non-sequitors you've given us from the internet. If it were, you or someone else should be able to present the facts and the arguments. If you think you've already done so, you're deluding yourself.

I wonder if what you're calling "logic" and "facts" isn't really judgment, opinion or intuition based on life experiences. I don't believe in ghosts, witches, etc., and would be willing to say, as you do of God, I know they don't exist, just as I'm willing to say I know Sarah Palin would make a terrible President of the United States. If pressed, I'd have to admit that it's really my opinion, but I wouldn't say it's "just" my opinion. It's an informed, thoughtful opinion, based on judgment shaped by my life experiences, values, readings, and the available evidence. There are people who believe in all of these things, including Sarah for President, but I'm still confident in my opinions on these matters, which are supported by substantial evidence. In the case of Sarah, she's said a lot of things that convince me she's a wing nut, and probably nobody could convince me otherwise. However, I'm willing to concede I could be wrong, and that I probably am wrong about at least some of the stuff I believe.

Your heart is in the right place, but you really should be more critical of the internet sources which you seem to accept as the truth.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
*I'm using the term "Pharisee" figuratively and metaphorically to describe tendencies that I see in contemporary Christianity. Yes I'm aware there were good Pharisees (Nichodemas, Hillel, Gamaliel, etc.) and that some scholars think Jesus was one. I'm using the term, as portrayed by Matthew, to refer to a pattern of hypocritical emphasis on outward displays of righteousness that seems all to common in the ranks of contemporary Christians.

 

.

 

knowing god's existence involves an experience , and the rule is
that it shall be verified . have faith in the verification , and this
is the one prayer that gets answered . should you have just three
such experiences you are likely very old .

 

Is the experience "verification", or does the experience need to be verified? And what would that entail?

 

verification shall be felt as a kindness . it is unmistakable , completely
honest , and personal understanding proceeds from there . you walk on
remembering this for all your days .

 

peace then in a form unmistakable to you

Clear light

 

k

respectfully blessed

 

That is simply incorrect. The rules of logic are definite and well-understood. It's impossible to prove or disprove God by means of logic and facts--certainly not the pseudo facts and non-sequitors you've given us from the internet. If it were, you or someone else should be able to present the facts and the arguments. If you think you've already done so, you're deluding yourself.


Quite contrary. The god you speak of has never been seen by more than one fanatic who ends up in a book written during the mythological times. He's not shown up here.

I wonder if what you're calling "logic" and "facts" isn't really judgment, opinion or intuition based on life experiences. I don't believe in ghosts, witches, etc., and would be willing to say, as you do of God, I know they don't exist, just as I'm willing to say I know Sarah Palin would make a terrible President of the United States. If pressed, I'd have to admit that it's really my opinion, but I wouldn't say it's "just" my opinion. It's an informed, thoughtful opinion, based on judgment shaped by my life experiences, values, readings, and the available evidence. There are people who believe in all of these things, including Sarah for President, but I'm still confident in my opinions on these matters, which are supported by substantial evidence. In the case of Sarah, she's said a lot of things that convince me she's a wing nut, and probably nobody could convince me otherwise. However, I'm willing to concede I could be wrong, and that I probably am wrong about at least some of the stuff I believe.


No, I'm calling logic and fact logic and fact. You yourself said you HAD to have faith to believe in god. So, the absence of believing in god is logic and fact. THere is no god. It has never been proven there is a god, so your faith is what creates the god in your head.


Your heart is in the right place, but you really should be more critical of the internet sources which you seem to accept as the truth.


Again, it's well documented and shows the chronological order of the Dominionist and Born again evangelical movement and how the republican party has used it to make the rich richer.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
*I'm using the term "Pharisee" figuratively and metaphorically to describe tendencies that I see in contemporary Christianity. Yes I'm aware there were good Pharisees (Nichodemas, Hillel, Gamaliel, etc.) and that some scholars think Jesus was one. I'm using the term, as portrayed by Matthew, to refer to a pattern of hypocritical emphasis on outward displays of righteousness that seems all to common in the ranks of contemporary Christians.[/QUOTE]


So far, they are just legendary figures. Even the existence of Christ has not been proven. For all intent and purposes, Paul made him up to get in good favor with the Romans. He probably was after some of the tax dollars, as well.

 

"Experience"? Well, that is one that is internalized, because there's no outward showing of Christ, either. Christian music, services and pastor sermons are all engaged in generating "emotions"; so "an experience" is something which is derived just as easily from a good movie or book.

 

Sorry Sam. You made the claim that you know (not just think, believe, etc.) that God doesn't exist, and then you gave a bunch of non-sequitors to support it, which I'll deal with below. The burden of proof is ordinarily on the person making the assertions, i.e., you. I don't think the existence of God can be proved or disproved. The God I speak of has been seen by lots of folks who seem otherwise normal, but that's beside the point. Neither of us believe their testimony. But you made a very strong claim--one much stronger than a good scientist would make about anything. Show us the logic and evidence. So far, you haven't.

The absence of faith is not logic and fact. It can just be a bunch of incoherent nonsense. You have to do better than that.

Just because your source uses footnotes doesn't mean it's well documented. The footnotes need to be to reliable sources and need to substantiate the claims they're being footnoted for. By the way, although I think the source is biased and over the top, I happen to agree, on the basis of my own reading and observation, with the general claim that the Republican Party has used the Dominionists and Evangelicals, and vice versa--and that the general result is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. The non-sequitor is that this somehow disproves God.

Are you saying the Pharisees are just legendary figures, or just the ones I mentioned? There's plenty of evidence outside of Christian sources for their existence. Try Josephus, for one. Or the Mishnah or the Talmud, for others. The Pharisees were the founders of rabbinical Judaism. Hillel and Gamaliel were among the most famous Pharisees, and are abundantly attested to in Jewish sources. For Hillel, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder ; http://jewishmag.com/40mag/shamai/shamai.htm For Gamaliel, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamaliel ; http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t10/ht105.htm . The Jewish Encyclopedia http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11525-nicodemus and many Biblical historians think that Nicodemus ben Gurion, mentioned in the Talmud , was a wealthy and popular holy man. Do you think Jews or rabbis are also legendary figures? But again what you're arguing with is an extraneous footnote that I included to explain that I wasn't disparaging all Pharisees. As for the existence of Jesus, I've made my case for that in a nine-point set of arguments that has yet to be rebutted (see the Jesus Myth thread).

Why do you think Paul would think he could get favors from the Romans by inventing Jesus? The Romans began persecuting Christians during the reign of Nero when Paul was preaching. Were they running out of lion food? There were already Christians before Paul began preaching. Some of them opposed Paul, and participated in the uprisings against the Romans during the sixties and seventies. It doesn't make sense Sam. Your theory is simply wild speculation without supporting evidence. You seem to be a sucker for such conspiracy theories. When you say he "probably" was after some of the tax dollars, do you have even a shred of evidence to back up that claim, or do you think it's "probable" just because the thought entered your mind? Take a logic course. Maybe then we'll be able to debate rationally.

 

.

 

the most valued experience is underived then . this experience is a gift . it is kind , of physical
expression , and is held to be more wonderous than emotional . an involuntary praise-the-lord
does not happen . the one time i fell on my knees i pretty quick thought now that was silly .
stand as a man . you are respected by spirit .